Agenda of Albert-Eden Local Board

Albert-Eden Local Board

25 September 2019

Albert-Eden Draft Urban Ngahere (Forest) Analysis Report

File No.: CP2019/14961

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Draft Albert-Eden Urban Forest (Ngahere) Analysis Report (Attachment A).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Albert-Eden Local Board provided funding in the 2018/2019 financial year to undertake the ‘Knowing phase’ of the Urban Ngahere (Forest) programme

3. This draft report presents the results of the ‘Knowing’ analysis of 2013 canopy cover data. The draft report forms a baseline for the Urban Ngahere work programme in the Albert-Eden local board area and enables planning for the ‘Growing’ phase to proceed in time for the 2020 planting season. A canopy cover change chapter will be added as an update to the analysis report once 2016 data is ready later this year. The final report with the updated chapter will be presented to the local board in early 2020.

4. The ‘Knowing phase’ has involved detailed analysis of the urban tree cover; using a variety of data sources from the council, Statistics NZ, and other local government sources. The analysis has looked at the urban tree cover extents from the 2013 aerial analysis work, alongside population statistics, and current growth projections outlined in the Auckland Plan.

5. The Albert-Eden Draft Urban Forest Analysis Report has established that urban tree coverage in the local board area is approximately 20 per cent of the overall land area in 2013. The total tree cover is good when compared to the averages across the region and is above the minimum target that has been set in the regional Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy. The strategy sets a regional target to have no local board with a canopy coverage less than 15 per cent.

6. To enable overall tree canopy cover to be maintained at existing levels and increased where possible, an ongoing programme of new specimen trees will need to be planted every year.

7. In the 2019/2020 financial year the local board has provided locally-driven initiatives funding to undertake the ‘Growing phase’ of the Ngahere programme. This funding will begin to implement the recommendations in the analysis report. New planting will take place to provide for the next generation of trees, with the aim of maintaining good tree cover and addressing an ageing tree population.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) approve the Draft Albert Eden Urban Ngahere (Forest) Analysis Report (Attachment A).

b) delegate authority to the General Manager, Parks, Sport and Recreation to make minor changes and amendments to the text and design of the Albert Eden Urban Ngahere (Forest) Analysis Report.

Horopaki

Context

8. In 2017, Auckland Council staff developed a regional tree strategy to address concerns around tree cover changes resulting from: development pressures, disease threats, climate change, and changes to tree protection rules.

9. The development of the strategy included workshops and consultation with elected members, mana whenua, and internal stakeholders. The work resulted in the regional Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy, which was adopted by the Environment and Community Committee in February 2018.

10. Currently the region has an average tree canopy cover of 18 per cent. The strategy sets targets that encourages all local boards to have a minimum tree canopy cover of at least 15 per cent, and on a regional scale the target is set at 30 per cent by 2050, in line with the Auckland Plan.

11. The regional Urban Ngahere Strategy recommends implementation and analysis at the local level. Local boards were offered the opportunity to invest locally-driven initiatives funding in area specific Urban Ngahere programmes of work.

12. The local board Urban Ngahere programme has three phases: ‘Knowing’, ‘Growing’ and ‘Protecting’. The ‘Knowing’ phase involves establishing a current state analysis report with recommendations for future actions. The ‘Growing’ phase involves tree planting. The Albert-Eden Local Board has allocated funding to begin the ‘Growing’ phase in the2019/2020 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. The analysis report highlights the good overall tree canopy coverage at 20 per cent for the Albert-Eden local board area.

The report provides a number of other statistics:

· 18 per cent of local roads have tree canopy cover

· 19 per cent of private land has tree canopy cover

· 23 per cent of public parks have tree canopy cover.

14. An update on the canopy coverage data analysis work will be presented to the local board later in 2019 when the final results of the LIDAR processing work is completed. The findings of the analysis work and of canopy cover change will be added to the results section of the analysis report once 2016 data is ready later this year. The final results will be inserted into chapter 8 of the analysis section. This will be presented to the local board as part of a workshop in early 2020.

15. Sections 8 and 9 of the report set out key focus areas for increasing the tree canopy coverage across the local board area. These are intended to help provide long-term lasting benefits for local communities, and to help address a reducing tree population.

16. Funding for an ongoing program of tree planting on public land in parks, open space areas and within the road corridor is necessary to help maintain the overall tree numbers in the local board area. This will help to increase the area’s overall tree canopy coverage in the long term.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. Parks, Sports and Recreation (PSR) has collaborated with Community Facilities to help inform where the current maintenance and renewal program for trees can help to improve the overall health diversity and extent of the tree canopy cover.

18. PSR will help inform the Community Facilities renewals program to ensure an ongoing program of tree renewal occurs to replace poor and ailing stock and to replant where dead, dying, or diseased trees are removed.

19. PSR and Community Facilities will collaboratively manage the locally-driven initiatives operating budget to develop a planting implementation plan and project manage the delivery of the new tree plantings in the 2020 planting season.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

20. The Albert-Eden Local Board has provided direction and support for the project at workshops in August 2018 and April 2019 to inform and direct completion the ‘Knowing’ phase reports. The board provided in-principle support to adopt the report.

21. The board has also provided locally-driven initiatives funding for the next stage of the Ngahere programme in the 2019/2020 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. The urban ngahere is important to mana whenua and the use of native trees will take place as the first choice in alignment with the council’s Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy. New tree plantings will benefit local Māori and the wider community by providing increased opportunities for access to nature and providing shade in the local park network.

23. Mana whenua will be engaged to support tree planting preparation and provide a cultural narrative in the choice of species for the local areas.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

24. The local board has provided further locally-driven initiatives funding in the 2019/2020 financial year to undertake scoping of sites for new tree plantings. Further detail on this programme will be presented to the local board at the beginning of 2020.

25. It is recommended the local board adopts an annual programme of new tree planting in parks and along streets to help to maintain the level of tree canopy coverage on public land across the entire local board area.

26. Further work is required to establish other options for financial assistance from the private sector within the local board area. Planting on private land is needed and large land holders such as Housing New Zealand and the Ministry of Education can help by funding the plantings of new trees.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

27. Failure to provide further funding for the ngahere programme will result in no long term planting plan development and no specific new tree planting programme taking place in neighbourhood parks and along the road berms on suburban streets. Current renewal planting will be the only mechanism for improving the current tree asset.

28. The analysis report highlights a need for additional efforts to significantly increase tree canopy cover to help provide increased shade and the additional social and health benefits that come with more tree cover. In addition, the planting of new trees is increasingly being recognised as a local solution to help with climate related changes that are taking place.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. A canopy cover change chapter will be added as an update addendum once the data is ready later this year. The updated chapter will be presented to the local board in early 2020.

30. Staff recommend that the board delegate authority to the General Manager of PSR for minor changes to the report. This will streamline the approval process for the final draft (with addendum).

31. Community Services and Community Facilities will work collaboratively to develop an outline of the ‘Growing’ programme to set out planting implementation plan along with recommendations on new tree planting opportunities for the next five years. The longer-term growing plan for the planting programme will be adopted via a report in Quarter 4 of the 2019/2020 financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Albert-Eden Urban Forest (Ngahere) Analysis Report	11

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Howell Davies – Senior Advisor – Urban Forest

Rob Gear - PSR Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

25 September 2019

Point Chevalier Community Needs Assessment

File No.: CP2019/17194

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive the Point Chevalier Community Needs Assessment.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Community Facilities Network Action Plan (2015) and Albert-Eden Local Board Plan (2017) have actions and objectives to improve the Point Chevalier Community Centre (PCCC) to ensure it is fit for purpose, encourage greater use by local groups and meet future population growth.

3. The PCCC, located at 18-20 Huia Road, is a converted house and the room size and configuration currently limit the services that can be provided.

4. The Point Chevalier community is expected to grow and change with an anticipated rise of approximately 5,800 residents over the next 30 years. This does not include the proposed development at the Unitec site on Carrington Road, which is expected to deliver 3,000-4,000 new dwellings equating to around 6,000-8,000 additional residents. The scale and timing of intensification is not clear at this stage.

5. Service property optimisation has been proposed as a potential funding mechanism to deliver improved service outcomes and meet future service requirements by leveraging the development capacity of the land at 18-20 Huia Road. Clearly defined future service requirements are a key input needed to assess the feasibility of optimisation.

6. The Point Chevalier Community Needs Assessment (needs assessment) assesses local community service requirements, current service provision and implications for the PCCC (refer Attachment A).

7. The key findings identified through the needs assessment are as follows:

· Current community needs are being met but this is likely to change as a result of anticipated population growth

· The PCCC has additional capacity to accommodate an increase in demand

· There are other community facilities available for use in Point Chevalier

· There is no major gap in indoor youth needs in the Point Chevalier area

· Timing of the Point Chevalier population growth and the implications for community facilities is not yet clear.

8. Future service requirements are dependent on an understanding of scale and timing of population growth and third-party plans for service provision. The needs assessment concludes that confirmation of future service requirements for the community centre should be deferred until the relevant information is available.

9. In the meantime, staff will continue operational efforts to make best use of the PCCC and continue building relationships with other service providers. Staff will investigate and monitor third-party development activity and population growth information as it becomes available. Staff will provide an update to the local board in early 2020 on any new information and the implications for future service requirements.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) receive the findings of the Point Chevalier Community Needs Assessment dated August 2019 (Attachment A).

Horopaki

Context

Scope and drivers for this work

10. The needs assessment seeks to understand current and future community service requirements and the current responses to these, to inform decisions on service provision, spatial requirements and the implications for the PCCC.

11. Key drivers for this work include:

· The Community Facilities Network Action Plan (2015) which has the following priority action:

“Investigate options to improve Pt Chevalier Community centre to address fit for purpose issues and future population growth”.

· The Albert–Eden Local Board Plan 2017 which identifies an outcome “Our community spaces are well used by everyone” and associated initiative “Ensure our halls and four community centres at Epsom, Mt Albert, Sandringham and Point Chevalier are upgraded and well maintained so that local groups will be encouraged to use their facilities”.

Point Chevalier Community Centre

12. The PCCC is located in the Point Chevalier town centre at 18-20 Huia Road. The facility is a converted house that is in good condition and consists of two levels with a separate annex. It contains six rooms which are relatively small in size (the largest, the annex, can accommodate 32 people seated), two offices, kitchen and bathroom facilities.

13. It has a mixed operating model as both a venue for hire service and programming through council’s Community Places team. Plunket has a community lease over one of the offices.

14. The total area of the site at 18-20 Huia Road is approximately 1,300m2. The community centre occupies approximately half of the site. The remaining area is occupied by a community lease to Learning at the Point, a not for profit community kindergarten that has operated from the site for almost 30 years.

Optimisation

15. Optimisation has been proposed as a potential funding mechanism to deliver improved service outcomes and meet future service requirements by leveraging the development capacity of the land at 18-20 Huia Road. Optimisation is a cross-council portfolio development approach led by Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku), targeting underperforming existing service assets. It seeks to improve levels of service to the community, while delivering on strategic outcomes such as housing and urban regeneration without impacting on rates. Any funds generated by optimisation are ring-fenced directly back into the service component of the project itself or into other eligible local board projects.

16. A community needs assessment confirms the community service requirements and associated spatial requirements, which is a key input needed to progress the optimisation feasibility assessments.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. Mobius Research were engaged to undertake the needs assessment. The research included analysis of existing information, in-depth interviews with key community stakeholders and members of the wider community, an online survey and a community open day. It built on previous work and considered the function and use of the PCCC in the context of other council-owned and non-council providers and facilities and future needs of the Point Chevalier community.

Demographic and growth information

18. Between the 2006 census and the 2013 census the Point Chevalier population was relatively static, with an increase of 531 people. The latest growth model report (i-11 version 3) shows the population projections for Point Chevalier as follows:

Year	2019	2027	2051
Projected Population	13,319	15,505	19,176

Note: this excludes the proposed Unitec land development which is estimated to deliver 3,000-4,000 new dwellings.

19. Compared to the rest of Auckland, Point Chevalier has a higher European population and lower Pacific, Māori and Asian population and the medium age is slightly higher. Household income is higher than the regional average and the number of residents with a formal qualification is slightly higher.

20. The up-zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan provides for increased commercial development in the Point Chevalier town centre and intensification of the surrounding residential area.

21. There are several third-party residential developments underway and proposed within Point Chevalier and the adjoining Waterview area. The most significant of these is the 29-hectare development on the Unitec site on Carrington Road where it is proposed to develop 3,000-4,000 dwellings comprising a mix of affordable, state and market housing. Housing New Zealand also has substantial development proposals delivering over 220 dwellings across Point Chevalier and Waterview, some of which are well progressed.

22. The up-zoning and third-party developments will contribute to future population growth, although the timing and level of intensification is not clear at this stage.

Findings from the Point Chevalier Community Needs Assessment

23. The key findings identified through the needs assessment are as follows:

· Current community needs are being met but this is likely to change as a result of anticipated population growth

Community needs are currently being met by a range of council and non-council community providers in the Point Chevalier area. Proposed intensification in the area signals population growth and a likely increase in service demand in the future.

· The PCCC has additional capacity to accommodate an increase in demand

However, the size and configuration of the rooms limit the types of activities that can be accommodated. Other community facilities in the Point Chevalier area provide a range of community service opportunities and there is a lack of awareness of what the PCCC offers. It is noted that recent improvements to the facility, programming and events, and active marketing has resulted in an increase in the centre’s usage.

· There are other community facilities available for use in Point Chevalier

There are several existing community facilities, both council and non-council, available as venues for hire and for programme participation. These include private facilities and clubs, school and church halls. While reportedly busy, capacity is available.

· There is no major gap in indoor youth needs in the Point Chevalier area

Feedback suggests that more outdoor facilities, for example a basketball court, would be of more interest for youth than indoor facilities. It is noted that PCCC’s ground floor rooms are now being used by two youth related groups.

· Timing of the Point Chevalier population growth and the implications for community facilities is not yet clear

Future service requirements are dependent on an understanding of population growth and third-party plans for service provision or enhancement. While there are various existing growth models the level of intensification and timing of the growth is unclear. Further clarification is required around the various developments proposed in the Point Chevalier and immediate area, particularly the Unitec land and Housing NZ developments which may also contain community service provision.

24. The needs assessment concludes that confirmation of future service requirements for the community centre should be deferred until the relevant information is available. This would provide:

· future growth projections and proposed third-party developments to be fully investigated

· the potential to explore opportunities arising through local developments, partnership(s) with other community provider(s).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. A cross council team and Panuku have provided input throughout this project.

26. For the project to progress, future service requirements and what ‘fit-for-purpose’ looks like must be clearly defined before feasibility assessment can proceed to determine what redevelopment is financially viable.

27. Relationships will continue to be built with other community service providers within Point Chevalier to help build a stronger network.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

28. Recent improvements to the community centre have been implemented as a result of the findings of the needs assessment. This has resulted in an increase in usage.

Local Board Views

29. Local board views have been gathered through workshops held in August and December 2018 and March and August 2019.

30. Postponing option development and feasibility has been discussed with the local board. The desire by the local board to be proactive in reviewing the future of the PCCC is noted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

31. A Mana Whenua Engagement Framework for service property optimisation projects was endorsed by the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum in August 2017. This framework sets out how mana whenua will be engaged throughout an optimisation project, including opportunities for mana whenua to identify cultural and commercial interests.

32. Mana whenua will be engaged once there is greater understanding of future service requirements and the implications for existing facilities. Any feedback received from Mana Whenua will be included in updates to the local board.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

33. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

34. Identified risks and mitigations associated with the recommendations in this report are outlined in the below table:

Risks	Mitigations
Community services will continue to be provided within a constrained environment.	The needs assessment has confirmed the current service needs in Point Chevalier are being met by the existing network. Improvements to the community centre facility, programmes and events and marketing have already resulted in an increase in usage. It is proposed to continue this effort.
The planning and/or housing market landscape may change which could impact on the feasibility of future options and optimisation might prove not to be a viable funding mechanism.	Ongoing monitoring and assessment of feasibility once future service requirements are clear.

Risks

Mitigations

Community services will continue to be provided within a constrained environment.

The needs assessment has confirmed the current service needs in Point Chevalier are being met by the existing network.

Improvements to the community centre facility, programmes and events and marketing have already resulted in an increase in usage. It is proposed to continue this effort.

The planning and/or housing market landscape may change which could impact on the feasibility of future options and optimisation might prove not to be a viable funding mechanism.

Ongoing monitoring and assessment of feasibility once future service requirements are clear.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. Staff will make the Point Chevalier Community Needs Assessment available to community stakeholders that participated in the process.

36. During the next six months Service, Strategy and Integration and Panuku staff will:

· continue to monitor third-party development to understand timing and any opportunities to align (particularly if a community service component is to be incorporated within these developments)

· review new census data on release to inform future needs

· seek programme alignment with Plans and Places (centre plan) and Auckland Transport (transport infrastructure programme and any property development plans in Point Chevalier)

· investigate how the above information relates to future service requirements (including library provision and potential integration).

37. Community Places staff will continue operational effort to make best use of the PCCC and continue building relationships with other service providers.

38. Service, Strategy and Integration and Panuku staff will report back to the local board in early 2020 with an update on any new information and the impact of this on understanding future service requirements.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Point Chevalier Community Needs Assessment	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sophie Bell - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Rachel Hume - Portfolio Specialist

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Marian Webb - Manager Portfolio Strategy, Panuku Development Auckland

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

25 September 2019

Mt Albert War Memorial Park Carpark Renewal Works Funding Request

File No.: CP2019/17521

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to bring forward the physical works at Mt Albert War Memorial Park carpark renewal works into 2019/2020 as part of the risk adjusted programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The existing carpark outside the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall has been identified for a renewal of the surface, with the design and consent stage having been undertaken during 2018/2019. The tender process and the undertaking of physical works stages are now ready to progress.

3. Council staff have undertaken consultation with stakeholder groups, and they are in support of the proposed carpark renewal work.

4. High level indicative cost estimates for the renewal works of the carpark have indicated approximately $500,000 capital expenditure funding will be required to undertake this work. This includes costings for professional services and contingencies.

5. The renewals capital expenditure budget for this project totals $361,000. $111,000 was approved for the project as part of the 2019/2020 work programme and $250,000 was approved, in principal, across 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. Staff recommend that the local board approve an additional $150,000 from its 2019/2020 renewals capital expenditure budget to enable staff to complete the project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) approve that the physical works stage for the Mt Albert War Memorial Park carpark renewal be brought forward to 2019/2020 as part of the Community Facilities risk adjusted programme.

b) approve $150,000 from the local board’s 2019/2020 renewal capital expenditure budget to complete the physical works stage for the Mt Albert War Memorial Park carpark.

c) approve that $250,000 from the local board’s 2020/2021 and 2021/2020 renewals capital expenditure budget be brought forward to 2019/2020 to complete the physical works stage for the Mt Albert War Memorial Park carpark.

Horopaki

Context

6. The Mt Albert War Memorial Park carpark is used by the Mt Albert Recreation Centre, venue for hire of the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall and Rocket Park playground users.

7. The proposed works are to renew the entire top carpark closest to the main entrance of the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and the rear entrance to the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall.

8. For the duration of the physical works stage, the main driveway from New North Road and the entire carpark outside the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and Mt Albert War Memorial Hall will be closed for public use.

9. The proposed works will renew the carpark surface providing for accessible carparks, parental parking, pedestrian safety through and around the carpark as well as improving accessible access to the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and Mt Albert War Memorial Hall.

10. When completed, the renewed carpark will provide for 56 carparks, this includes accessibility and parental parking.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11. The Mt Albert War Memorial carpark’s current condition is poor, with pot holes and drainage issues in the main driveway.

12. The Albert-Eden Local Board has requested for the Mt Albert War Memorial carpark to be renewed as soon as possible.

13. The Mt Albert War Memorial carpark renewal works will provide improved accessible routes for users of the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall.

14. The renewal works will be undertaken during the summer period of 2019/2020, which will be less disruptive for the Mt Albert Recreation Centre users and venue for hire users. The physical works for the carpark does impact on a booked event in Rocket Park on the 25 January 2020.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. The proposed carpark renewal is supported by Parks, Sports and Recreation and Community Places.

16. Collaboration with staff within Community Facilities will be ongoing to ensure that the renewed carpark is integrated into operational maintenance and asset management systems appropriately once completed.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

17. It is proposed to undertake the carpark renewal works commencing late November 2019, in agreement with the Mt Albert Recreation Centre management and venue for hire.

18. The carpark renewal works will impact the users of the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and venue hire users as the majority of the upper carpark will be closed during construction. The lower carpark will still be operational with full pedestrian access to the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and Mt Albert War Memorial Hall.

19. The physical works will be undertaken during the summer period of 2019/2020, which will be less disruptive for the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and Mt Albert War Memorial Hall users. The Auckland Council events team have confirmed there is a major event planned to be taking place on 25 January 2020. Although this public event is set up in the Rocket Park area, carparking for the event will not be made available immediately adjacent the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and Mt Albert War Memorial Hall as the event is taking place during the critical construction works period.

20. The appointed works contractor will inform local residents in the form of a letter drop, advising of the proposed carpark renewal construction works and the expected duration of the carpark closure.

The project aligns with the following Albert-Eden Local Board Plan 2017 outcomes and objectives:

Outcome	Objective
Our community spaces are well used by everyone	We have spaces that are inviting, flexible and well used by multiple community groups.
Our parks are enjoyed by all	Everyone can access the parks we share in Albert-Eden and use them in ways that enhance their lifestyles. As a community we feel a shared ownership of our parks, and we take care of them together.

21. At a work programme workshop on 11 September 2019, Albert-Eden Local Board members provided informal support for the renewal of the carpark works at the Mt Albert War Memorial Park to be progressed within the 2019/2020 financial year, as part of the Community Facilities risk adjusted programme.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. All community assets contribute significantly to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where aspects of this proposed project were anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua then appropriate engagement was undertaken.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. The cost estimate for the carpark renewals works prepared by a quantity surveyor has indicated a capital expenditure budget of approximately $500,000 will be required to undertake this work. This figure includes for professional services and contingencies.

24. It is proposed to bring forward the delivery of the carpark renewal works from financial year 2020/2021 and financial year 2021/2022 as part of the risk adjusted programme. Noting the capital expenditure budget of $250,000 remains in the financial year it was planned for.

25. Additional renewal budget of $150,000 is sought from the local board’s 2019/2020 unallocated renewal funding.

26. Upon approval of the additional $150,000 renewals capex funding required, the local board will have $110,250 remaining in unallocated 2019/2020 renewals funding.

27. A further report will be submitted to the Albert-Eden Local Boards December business meeting to seek allocation of the remaining 2019/2020 renewals capital expenditure funding.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. There is a risk that following the tender stage the capital expenditure funding required to deliver all the assets may be insufficient. If this eventuates, Community Facilities project delivery staff will meet with the local board to review any options that may be available for reducing the scope while still achieving the desired outcomes.

29. There is a risk that if the construction of the carpark does not commence in November, as planned, this will shift the end date for the handover of the carpark to later than 16 weeks. This could impact on the busy schedule that the Mt Albert Recreation Centre has planned for the new year and any hall bookings in the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30. Following the approval to bring forward the delivery of the carpark renewal works as part of the risk adjusted programme and the allocation of additional renewals capital expenditure budget, the tendering stage can commence.

31. Upon completion of the tendering stage should the capital expenditure renewal funding be insufficient the local board will be informed of the options available by reducing the scope while still achieving the desired outcomes.

32. Construction of the physical works will be progressed in late November 2019 to minimize impact upon users of the Mt Albert Recreation Centre and the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall as a venue for hire.

33. The physical works period is expected to take up to 16 weeks. This is an indicative time frame and is weather dependent.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ahsan Kamal - Project Delivery Manager

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport September 2019 update	133
b ⇩	Allocation of Local Board Transport Capital Fund	143

Albert-Eden Local Board

25 September 2019

Referred from the Governing Body: Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw

File No.: CP2019/16514

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note the resolution of the Governing Body and consider giving feedback to the Chief Executive before 30 September 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 22 August 2019, the Governing Body resolved as follows:

Resolution number GB/2019/82

MOVED by Mayor P Goff, seconded by Cr L Cooper:

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the Freedom Camping Hearings Panel recommendations

b) defer any decision on a Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw pending advice from officers on the content of a new Statement of Proposal for a bylaw, and further information on a possible review of the Freedom Camping Act 2011

c) agree to alter part of previous resolution GB/2015/112 passed at the Governing Body meeting on 29 October 2015

from:

“a) confirm the following legacy bylaws, or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 until 31 October 2020, at which time these bylaws, or residual parts, will be automatically revoked …”

to:

“a) confirm the legacy bylaws in i., or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, until a new bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 comes into force at which time these bylaws or residual parts will be automatically revoked; and confirm the legacy bylaws in subparagraphs ii. to v. or residual parts, in accordance with section 63(3) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 until 31 October 2020, at which time these bylaws, or residual parts, will be automatically revoked…”

d) direct officers to provide the Regulatory Committee (or its equivalent) and Governing Body with advice on the following potential elements of a future Statement of Proposal:

i) proposed prohibitions in the following areas:

A) all areas the Freedom Camping Hearings Panel recommended should be prohibited

B) the 61 sites proposed in public submissions for inclusion as prohibited areas, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report

C) all Reserves in residential areas that are Reserves held under the Reserves Act 1977

ii) restricted freedom camping in the seven sites proposed in public submissions for inclusion as restricted freedom camping areas, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report

iii) restricted or prohibited freedom camping in two sites proposed in public submissions, which were not specified in the original Statement of Proposal but are identified in Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report

iv) a General Rule that regulates freedom camping outside restricted and prohibited areas not listed in the proposed bylaw, which includes provision for:

A) a prohibition of all freedom camping in vehicles parked directly outside residential homes (unless the resident has granted permission for the vehicle to be parked outside their home)

B) a prohibition of all freedom camping in vehicles parked directly outside commercial premises, educational facilities, healthcare facilities, playgrounds, and swimming pools

C) a maximum number of nights stay at any specific site

D) the same enforcement approach in relation to homelessness as set out in the original Statement of Proposal, which aims to offer compassionate support for people with social needs

v) any other specific proposal for possible inclusion in a Statement of Proposal that is communicated to the Chief Executive by a councillor or Local Board before 30 September 2019

e) note that following decisions on the advice on the matters in recommendation d) above, council officers will be directed to develop a new Statement of Proposal for the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw for consideration by the Regulatory Committee (or its equivalent) and the Governing Body, following consultation with Local Boards”.

3. The Governing Body considered the following at its meeting on 22 August 2019:

a) Item 9 – Implementing the next steps for the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw (Hearings Panel Report).

b) Item 10 – Chair’s Report on Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.

4. The attachments to this report show sites that are already in scope for the next phase of work. Attachment A provides a list of areas included in the previous statement of proposal and Attachment B provides a list of the 70 additional areas raised by submitters during the previous consultation.

5. This is an opportunity to provide further input on proposed sites which have not already been included within the scope of the next phase and which meet statutory requirements for inclusion in the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) note the resolution of the Governing Body with regards to the Freedom Camping in Vehicles Bylaw.

b) forward any other specific proposal for possible inclusion in a Statement of Proposal to the Chief Executive before 30 September 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Freedom Camping in Vehicles – Managing freedom camping in Auckland (Statement of Proposal)	153
b ⇩	Areas proposed by submitters during public consultation and not included within the statement of proposal (Attachment E of the Hearings Panel Report)	195

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager, Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

25 September 2019

Informal local board workshop views on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review

File No.: CP2019/15539

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a summary to local boards of informal views presented at recent workshops on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review, and to provide an opportunity for any formal resolutions from local boards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is reviewing the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 as part of its required five-year statutory review.

3. Staff circulated a draft findings report on the bylaw review to all local boards in May 2019.

4. Eighteen local boards requested individual workshops to ask staff questions and provide informal views on the draft findings. Staff conducted these workshops in June and July 2019.

5. The workshop discussions about the draft findings report included:

· animal nuisances occurring regionally and locally

· issues with some definitions in the bylaw

· requirements to provide identification for owned animals

· Auckland Council’s processes for managing animals

· current and suggested controls on specific animals, e.g. stock, bees, horses, and cats.

6. This report summarises the informal views provided at these workshops. These informal views will guide staff in developing and assessing options for managing animals in Auckland.

7. This report also gives local boards an opportunity to formalise any views before staff present findings and options to the Regulatory Committee in early 2020. Staff will seek direction from the committee at that time if the bylaw needs to be confirmed, amended, or revoked.

8. Local boards will have another opportunity to provide formal views when staff develop a statement of proposal following the Regulatory Committee’s recommendations.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) receives the report on informal workshop summary views from local boards on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review

b) provides any formal views on the draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review.

Horopaki

Context

9. The Ture ā-rohe Tiaki Kararehe 2015, Animal Management Bylaw 2015, was adopted by the Governing Body on 30 April 2015.

10. The purpose of the bylaw is to provide for the ownership of animals in a way that:

· protects the public from nuisance

· maintains and promotes public health and safety

· minimises the potential for offensive behaviour in public places

· manages animals in public places.

11. To help achieve its purpose the bylaw enables rules to be made on specific animals in separate controls (Figure 1). The bylaw contains controls for:

· beekeeping in urban areas

· keeping stock in urban areas

· horse riding in a public place.

Figure 1 – Animal Management Bylaw 2015 framework

The bylaw does not address dogs

12. Dogs are managed through the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2019 and Dog Management Bylaw 2019. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires territorial authorities to adopt a dog management policy.

13. The bylaw regulates owners of any animal of the animal kingdom except humans and dogs.

The bylaw does not regulate animal welfare

14. The Local Government Act 2002 and Health Act 1956, under which the bylaw was created, provide powers to protect people from nuisance and harm, not animals.

15. Issues with predators eating protected wildlife or animals trampling natural fauna are addressed through other legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act 1999, Wildlife Act 1953 and Biosecurity Act 1993.

The bylaw must be reviewed to ensure it is still necessary and appropriate

16. Auckland Council must complete a statutory review of the bylaw by 30 April 2020 to prevent it from expiring.

17. Following the statutory review, the council can propose the bylaw be confirmed, amended, revoked or replaced using a public consultative procedure.

18. In May 2019 staff completed a draft findings report for the bylaw review. The draft report identified current issues with animal nuisance and potential areas of improvement for the bylaw.

Staff held local board workshops to obtain informal views on the draft findings report

19. Staff provided a copy of the draft findings report to all local boards in May 2019. Eighteen local boards requested workshops which were conducted in June and July 2019.

20. At these workshops local boards provided informal views and asked questions on the draft findings report. These informal views will aid staff in producing a range of options to respond to identified animal nuisance and management issues.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. The following sections summarise the informal local board views from the workshops collectively. The sections provide informal views on:

· ongoing animal nuisance issues

· the bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’

· the bylaw’s definition of ‘nuisance’

· exclusion rules for companion animals

· identifying owned animals

· the council’s processes for managing animals

· views on existing and new controls for specific animals.

22. The PowerPoint presented at the local board workshops is provided in Attachment A. The subsections below reference the relevant slide pages.

23. Questions from local boards at the workshops are provided in Attachment B. These questions will be further explored during the options analysis.

There are ongoing issues with animal nuisance (Slides 9-10)

24. At the workshops staff presented known animal nuisances occurring regionally and locally. Previous engagement captured many types of nuisance, but local boards added and emphasised the nuisances listed below.

Table 2 - Local board informal views on animal nuisances

Bees	· Bees leaving excrement on cars is a minor nuisance. · Some people, especially those with bee allergies, are fearful of bees coming onto their property.
Birds	· Types of nuisance caused by birds is very subjective. · People are abandoning geese and ducks. · Breeding parrots is a nuisance. · Turkeys and peacocks are causing a nuisance in rural areas. · Feeding wild pigeons and seagulls is causing a nuisance.
Cats	· There are large numbers of stray cats across the region. · Cats breed in construction and development spaces. · Cats cause a nuisance by defecating in vegetable gardens. · Abandoned kittens become feral and cause nuisance. · Cats are eating native wildlife.
Pigs	· In urban areas temporarily keeping pigs for fattening causes nuisance.
Rabbits	· Rabbit infestations on council land cause nuisance to neighbouring properties.
Roosters	· Roosters are a nuisance and can be vicious, harmful animals. · In rural areas people are abandoning roosters. · Rural areas have a higher tolerance for roosters.
Stock	· In rural areas there are issues with fences deteriorating and stock escaping. · Loose chickens and wandering stock are a nuisance.
Vermin	· People complain about vermin and water rats in waterways, low tide or the deep bush. · Open composting could create issues with vermin. · Complaints about rats are increasing.

The bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’ needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)

25. The bylaw focuses on the responsibilities of owners of animals. It is unclear if someone who is providing for the needs of an animal, such as food or shelter, becomes responsible for that animal as their ‘owner’.

26. Most local boards view that the bylaw’s definition of ‘owner’ should be clearer.

Table 3 - Local Board informal views on the definition of ‘owner’

· Any animal, whether owned or unowned, should be addressed in the bylaw.

· The current definition is useful as it captures a broad scope of animal owners.

· The definition should elaborate on criteria for the phrase ‘under that person’s care’.

· Owner definition should include accountability for feeding wild animals but should:

o not punish volunteers who care for the animals’ wellbeing

o allow animal control officers to feed animals to trap them.

27. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following.

· The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 manages cats that are not microchipped or identified by a collar and that are on significant ecological areas.

· The Wildlife Act 1953 provides that a wild animal is the property of the Crown until it has been lawfully taken or killed. At that point it becomes the property of the killer or trapper. This act specifically excludes some animals, such as cats, pigeons and rats, from being vested in the Crown.

· In areas of high conservation value or where there is serious threat, the council will undertake control of certain pest animals. In general, landowners and occupiers are primarily responsible for managing pests.

The bylaw’s definition of ‘nuisance’ needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)

28. The bylaw uses the Health Act 1956 definition of ‘nuisance’. This includes a person, animal thing, or circumstance causing unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, or convenience of another person.

29. Local boards provided a mix of informal views on the definition of ‘nuisance’. Some local boards commented that the definition should have more specific criteria, while others said the bylaw should retain the current broad definition.

Table 4 - Local board informal views on the definition of ‘nuisance’

· The definition of nuisance in the Health Act 1956 is outdated.

· Having specific and measurable criteria for nuisance is good.

· The nuisance definition is difficult to enforce without some specific criteria.

· Intensification and tenancy laws allowing for pets will increase nuisance incidents, so the definition needs more specific criteria.

· Reporting animal nuisance can cause tension between neighbours. Specific criteria would be useful, so neighbours are not left to interpret nuisance on their own.

· A broader definition of nuisance fits with common law and covers more occurrences.

· There cannot be one definition of nuisance since there is no one definition of Aucklanders.

· The definition of nuisance in the bylaw should have both general and specific parts.

Incorporating companion animals into the bylaw needs to be reviewed (Slide 15)

30. Currently, the bylaw does not mention companion animals (pets). The bylaw manages animals equally unless they are stock, poultry or bees.

31. Some Aucklanders find it confusing that the bylaw does not specifically address companion animals. There is misunderstanding that stock animals which are kept as pets instead of food, such as pigs and goats, are not subject to the bylaw’s stock controls.

32. Local boards had mixed views about creating a definition for companion animals. Some viewed the rules should apply based on how the animal is kept. Other local boards said the rules should apply regardless if the animal is a pet.

Table 5 - Local board informal views on adding companion animals in the bylaw's definitions

Companion animals should have separate rules

· Some animals should be defined as companion animals in the bylaw.

· The bylaw should make exceptions if any animal is defined as stock but is a pet.

· Companion animals should be excluded from the bylaw rules.

o Goats are popular pets and can be good companions.

o Farm animals as pets can provide the same benefits as traditional pets.

Companion animals should not have separate rules

· Companion animals which are stock animals should still require same licensing process as other stock animals.

· Companion animals should not have their own rules as some neighbours are not familiar or okay with stock animals being kept as pets.

· Having a specific definition increases complexity and introduces subjectivity. It should not matter what a person says about their animal.

· People should not be allowed to have livestock as pets in urban areas.

· An animal is an animal no matter how it is kept. Since the nuisance effects on neighbours are the same, there should be no distinctions.

33. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops staff note that you cannot buy or take ownership of a pest animal. If you already own a pest animal, you can keep it, but you cannot abandon it, give it to a new owner, or allow the pest animal to breed. The Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 classifies unowned cats as pests.

Requirements for identifying owned animals needs to be reviewed (Slide 17)

34. The bylaw does not require owners to provide their animal with identification.

35. The draft findings report revealed that requiring animal identification would facilitate addressing animal nuisance issues. Most local boards viewed animal identification as helpful but impractical.

Table 6 - Local board informal views on identifying owned animals

· If your animal is going to leave your property, it should be identified.

· Council should offer a form of assistance to identify your animal.

· Every farm animal should be tagged and named.

· Identifying animals would prevent people from feeding unowned animals.

· Identifying animals is useful but impractical.

· The council should collaborate with the National Animal Identification and Tracing database.

36. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note that provided there is a valid purpose, the council has power to regulate animal registration. Any requirement would need to match the size and scale of the issue and would need to show it would effectively reduce harm and nuisance to people.

There is uncertainty about the council’s processes for managing animals (Slide 17)

37. The draft findings report identified that some Aucklanders are unclear about the council’s processes and protocols for managing animals, especially unowned animals. This confusion reduces people’s willingness to report nuisance, as they are unsure who is responsible. Only two per cent of surveyed respondents who experienced animal nuisance reported it to the council.

38. The draft findings report identified the bylaw could be strengthened by providing information about non-regulatory processes and protocols for managing animals, especially unowned animals. Most local boards viewed that the council’s processes could be clearer.

Table 7 - Local board informal views on council processes for managing animals

· The bylaw should be clear on what the council does and does not do regarding animal management.

· The council should clarify the process for reporting unowned animals causing nuisance.

· The bylaw’s animal management processes need to align with the Regional Pest Management Plan.

· The council should offer mediation services for disgruntled neighbours over animal nuisance.

39. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following.

· A property owner may trap and/or lawfully kill an animal on their property. It is a criminal offence to kill an owned animal or destroy the animal inhumanely.

· To prove a legal claim for damage to private property by an owned animal, the property owner would need to show the owner of the animal had failed to take reasonable care to avoid the damage.

· Culling is managed by central government laws and regulations, rather than the Animal Management Bylaw 2015.

Views on existing controls for specific animals in the bylaw (Slide 22)

40. Around 90 per cent of surveyed Aucklanders said the current bylaw controls for bees, stock and horses were about right or had no view.

41. The draft findings report showed council compliance response officers would find limits to urban beehives and more specific requirements for chicken coop locations easier to enforce than the current bylaw controls.

42. Local boards had a mix of views. Some had views on needing more controls, and some had views to keep the controls the same or less.

Table 8 - Local board informal views on the current controls in the bylaw

Animal	Current control	Views on more control	Views on same or less control
Bees	Any properties, urban or rural, can keep any number of bees. Beekeepers must manage the flight path and temperament of their bees. Beekeepers must ensure nuisance from their bees’ excrement is minimised, and the bees have a suitable water source on the premises.	· The council should restrict beekeeping if people have bee-sting allergies. · Limit the number of beehives in an area to prevent colony competition. · Increase awareness and visibility of who keeps bees in an area. · Restrict beekeeping to rural areas. · Restrict the number of beehives a person can have in urban areas. · Restrict beehive ownership by size of property. · There should be minimum training or qualification to own bees. You need experience. · Amateur beekeepers should be treated differently to commercial beekeepers.	· Bees are not causing much nuisance, so there is no need for more regulation. · We should be encouraging beekeeping. Should regulate rather than overregulate. · Do not restrict bees to just urban areas. · Bees should be unregulated. · Would be concerned if licensing costs for beekeeping were introduced. · Should be careful about restricting bees as they are important to the ecosystem.
Horses	Local boards are able to set specific controls for horses for local parks and beaches. Horses are currently not allowed to be kept in urban areas without a licence from the council unless the premises is larger than 4,000 square metres.	· The same access rules for dogs on beaches should be applied to horses. · Do not prohibit horses on beaches but restrict them to off-peak times. · Should lobby central government to include the same powers that protect native fauna and wildlife from dogs for horses.	· Horse owners should be responsible for removing manure. The bylaw should encourage accountability and consider that picking up manure is not always practical, e.g. on busy roads. · Should be allowed to ride horses on berms. · Horses should not be banned from roads. There are few places to ride.
Animal	Current control	Views on more control	Views on same or less control
Horses cont.	Horses are permitted in public spaces if: · manure is removed · consideration is taken to not intimidate or cause a nuisance for other public space users · beach dune damage is minimised.		· Increase communication and awareness of current controls to horse owners. · Would rather have horses on the roads than scooters.
Stock	Chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants and quail are the only stock animals currently permitted by the bylaw in urban areas without a licence from the council. Any other stock animal, including roosters, would require a licence from the council in urban areas unless the premises is larger than 4,000 square metres. Stock in urban areas must also be restrained within the boundaries of the premises on which they are kept, and chicken coops must not cause a nuisance and must be regularly cleaned. In rural areas the above controls do not apply. Rural residents must ensure their animals do not cause a nuisance to any other person.	· Stock should not be kept in urban areas. This is also humane for the animal. · There should be penalties for poor stock-fencing by roads in rural areas. · The bylaw needs a mechanism to deal with repeat ‘wandering stock’ offenders. · The criteria for keeping goats and other herbivores should be defined by the amount of grassy area on the property. · There should be restrictions on how far a chicken coop should be from the property boundary. · Fewer chickens should be allowed in urban areas. · Roosters should not be allowed in rural lifestyle blocks in urban areas.	· The current stock controls are adequate. · Support allowing pheasants in urban areas. · There are already legal consequences for not fencing your stock. The bylaw does not need to address. · If you have a large property in an urban area, goats should be allowed. · Make sure urban pet days are still allowed. · It does not matter where the chicken coop sits on the property if it is cleaned regularly. · There should not be a complete ban on roosters in urban areas.

Views on new controls for specific animals (Slide 23)

43. A quarter of surveyed Aucklanders (26 per cent) said the bylaw should introduce controls for other animals. Of those wanting controls for other animals, over half (57 per cent) wanted controls introduced for cats.

44. The draft findings report identified that council compliance officers and the SPCA support microchipping and registering of cats.

45. Local boards provided mixed views on introducing controls for new animals. The local boards agreed that any regulatory response would need to match the scale of the issue, be cost-effective, and have measurable effects on reducing nuisance.

Table 9 - Local board informal views on controls for cats and other animals

Informal local board views on controls for cats

Informal views on introducing controls for cats

· The bylaw should limit the number of cats a person can own.

o Should make sure extremes are restricted, such as having 30+ cats.

· The bylaw should require the de-sexing of cats.

o The council should work closely with the SPCA in this matter.

o Make it compulsory for cat owners.

· Local boards have varying support for requiring microchipping of cats including:

o full compulsory microchipping across the region

o limited microchipping only to cats living in eco-sensitive areas.

· The bylaw should have the same registration process for cats as the council has for dogs.

· There should be a curfew for cats.

· There should be controls to dissuade people from feeding stray cats, as it reinforces the cats’ behaviour.

· Publish best practices for tourists with cats and other animals visiting Hauraki Gulf Islands.

· The council should restrict cats from wandering.

· The council should restrict certain cat breeds, like Bengals.

Informal views on not introducing controls for cats

· Cat registration is difficult and has failed before. Auckland Council already has difficulty registering and enforcing dogs.

· Rely on the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 guidelines.

· Cats naturally wander. Containing them would be cruel.

· The council should invest in substantial long-term public education regarding cats.

· If the council restricts caring for stray cats, it could create animal welfare issues.

· Controlling cats is too trivial for the council to get involved.

Informal local board views on controls for other animals

· Rules are needed to restrict feeding wild animals in public, especially birds.

· How many animals a person can own should be restricted by section size.

· There should be a higher management expectation on animal owners in urban areas.

· The bylaw should address the health risks that animals can cause their owners.

· There should be a complete ban on snakes and ferrets.

· Rabbits are a major pest, especially in urban areas. The bylaw should restrict breeding.

· There should be controls on keeping birds in small cages.

· Unless there is a significant problem, neighbours should sort out their own problems.

46. In response to questions from local boards at the workshops, staff note the following,

· Any costs for managing stray cats would be investigated during the options development phase to respond to nuisance issues.

· The Local Government Act 2002 would give the council power to impose a curfew on cats if it was an appropriate response to the scale of the nuisance and would clearly show how the curfew would reduce harm and nuisance to humans.

· The council currently has more legal power to respond to dog nuisance than cat nuisance. The Dog Control Act 1996 gives the council wide-varying powers to address dog issues. There is no similar legislation for cats.

· Rat pest control is addressed through the Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.

· The Regional Pest Management Plan lists some tropical animals that can be treated as pests. These include eastern water dragons, Indian ring-necked parakeets, and snake-necked turtles.

· Chickens were not classified as pests in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to protect the Auckland region’s important biodiversity assets. There are no significant biodiversity benefits to managing feral chickens at a regional level. Feral chickens are primarily a human nuisance issue centred in the urban areas where people feed them.

Other views from local boards

Rights of property owners and protection

47. The bylaw does not explain what options property owners have to handle animal nuisance on their property themselves. It is unclear which animals property owners are allowed to trap and dispose of on their own and which animals are protected.

48. Some local boards said the bylaw should clarify property owners’ rights.

Enforcement

49. Some local boards said the council should be prepared to enforce any rules it may introduce.

50. The Local Government Act 2002 does not give the power to issue an infringement notice under a bylaw. Compliance officers have said this inhibits their ability to address nuisance issues as their next step after trying to elicit voluntary compliance is prosecution. This can be costly to the council.

51. Some local boards provided views that the Local Government Act 2002 should be amended to allow for infringement fines. Some local boards viewed that the bylaw would already be fit for purpose if it could be enforced with infringements.

Education

52. Most local boards said the council needs to increase education and awareness about the current animal management rules. Some local boards viewed that the council should focus more on informing Aucklanders of responsible animal management than increasing regulation.

53. Some local boards also advised that any changes to the bylaw, if required, would need to have a strong communication and awareness plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

54. The bylaw affects the operation of council units involved in animal management. These include biosecurity, animal management and compliance response officers. Staff held face-to-face meetings and a workshop with council officers. These views were provided in the draft findings report and workshops.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

55. Staff captured informal local board views through cluster workshops in March 2019. The draft findings report was shared with all local boards in May 2019, and staff attended individual local board workshops through June and July 2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56. Staff sought views from mana whenua at the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Forum in April 2019. The members present at the hui sought clarity that the bylaw’s reference of ‘public places’ does not extend to papakāinga (communal Māori land).

57. Members were also concerned with threats to estuaries, beaches, and waterways from unregulated coastal horse trails. These views were provided in the draft findings report and options development will consider these views.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

58. The cost of the bylaw review and implementation will be met within existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. There is a risk that the public may perceive this report as formal local board views or an attempt to regulate cats without public engagement. This risk can be mitigated by replying to any emerging media or public concerns by saying that no additions or changes will be made to the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 without full public consultation.

60. Local boards will have an opportunity to provide formal resolutions on any changes proposed to the bylaw in early 2020 before a public consultative procedure.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

61. Following any additional formalised views from local boards, staff will generate and assess options to respond to identified animal nuisances. Staff will present these findings and options in a report to the relevant committee in the new council term in early 2020.

62. Staff will seek formal local board views when developing a statement of proposal once the committee gives direction on animal management.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Presentation at local board workshops on draft findings of the Animal Management Bylaw 2015 review	211
b ⇩	Local board questions from the workshops	235

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Maclean Grindell - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Louise Mason - General Manager, Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

25 September 2019

Temporary arrangements for urgent decisions and staff delegations during the election period

File No.: CP2019/16515

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for temporary arrangements during the election period for:

· urgent decisions

· decisions made by staff under delegated authority from the local board that require consultation with local board members under delegation protocols.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Between the last local board business meeting of the current electoral term, and the first business meeting of the new term, decisions may be needed on urgent matters or routine business as usual that cannot wait until the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.

3. Current elected members remain in office until the new members’ term of office commences, which is the day after the declaration of election results. The declaration will be publicly notified on 21 October 2019, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing on 22 October 2019. The new members cannot act as members of the local board until they have made their statutory declaration at the inaugural local board meeting.

4. As for each of the previous terms, temporary arrangements are needed for urgent decisions of the local board, and decisions made by staff under existing delegated authority.

5. All local boards have made a general delegation to the Chief Executive, subject to a requirement to comply with delegation protocols approved by the local board, which require, amongst other matters, staff to consult with local board portfolio holders on certain matters. Where there is no nominated portfolio holder, staff consult with the chair. After the election, there will be no local board portfolio holders or chairs to consult until new arrangements are made in the new term.

6. As a temporary measure, approval is sought from the local board to allow staff to continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until the local board’s first business meeting, without consulting with the nominated portfolio holder or local board chair. Staff will consult with the local board chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the term.

7. Appointments made by the local board to external bodies will cease on the date of the election. New appointments will need to be made by the local board in the new term.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) utilise the board’s existing urgent decision-making process between the final local board business meeting and the commencement of the term of office of new local board members

b) note that from the commencement of the term of office of new local board members until the inaugural meeting of the incoming local board, urgent decision-making will be undertaken by the Chief Executive under existing delegations

c) approve that staff, as a temporary measure, can make business as usual decisions under their existing delegated authority without requiring compliance with the requirement in the current delegation protocols to consult with the nominated portfolio holder (or chair where there is no portfolio holder in place), from 22 October 2019, noting that staff will consult with the chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the new term

d) note that existing appointments by the local board to external bodies will cease at the election and new appointments will need to be made by the local board in the new term.

Horopaki

Context

8. Current elected members remain in office until the new members’ term of office commences, which is the day after the declaration of election results (Sections 115 and 116, Local Electoral Act 2001). The declaration will be publicly notified on 21 October 2019, with the term of office of current members ending and the term of office of new members commencing on 22 October 2019.

9. The new members cannot act as members of the local board until they have made their statutory declaration at the inaugural local board meeting (Clause 14, Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002).

10. Following the last local board meeting of the current electoral term, decisions may be needed on urgent matters or routine business as usual that cannot wait until the incoming local board’s first business meeting in the new electoral term.

11. As with each of the previous electoral terms, temporary arrangements need to be made for:

· urgent decisions

· decisions made by staff under delegated authority from the local board that require consultation with local board members under delegation protocols.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Urgent decisions

12. Between the last business meeting and the declaration of results on 21 October, current members are still in office, and can make urgent decisions if delegated to do so. If the board does not have an existing urgent decision-making process already in place, it is recommended that the board delegate to the chair and deputy chair the power to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board during this period.

13. The urgent decision-making process enables the board to make decisions where it is not practical to call the full board together. The Local Government Act 2002 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees, members of the local board or Auckland Council staff, any of its responsibilities, duties and powers, with some specific exceptions. This legislation enables the urgent decision-making process.

14. All requests for an urgent decision will be supported by a memo stating the nature of the issue, reason for urgency and what decisions or resolutions are required.

15. Board members that have delegated responsibilities, for example, delegations to provide feedback on notified resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement, may continue to exercise those delegations until their term of office ends on 22 October (or earlier if the delegation was specified to end earlier).

16. Between the declaration of results and the inaugural meeting, the current members are no longer in office, the new members cannot act until they give their statutory declaration, and new chairs and deputies will not be in place. During this period, urgent decisions will be made by the Chief Executive under his existing delegated authority (which includes a financial cap).

Decisions made by staff under delegated authority

17. All local boards have made a delegation to the Chief Executive. The delegation is subject to a requirement to comply with delegation protocols approved by the local board. These delegation protocols require, amongst other things, staff to consult with nominated portfolio holders on certain issues. Where there is no nominated portfolio holder, staff consult with the local board chair.

18. The most common area requiring consultation is landowner consents relating to local parks. The portfolio holder can refer the matter to the local board for a decision.

19. Parks staff receive a large number of landowner consent requests each month that relate to local parks across Auckland. The majority of these need to be processed within 20 working days (or less), either in order to meet the applicant’s timeframes and provide good customer service, or to meet statutory timeframes associated with resource consents. Only a small number of landowner requests are referred by the portfolio holder to the local board for a decision.

20. Prior to the election, staff can continue to consult with portfolio holders as required by the delegation protocols (or chair where there is no portfolio holder). However, after the election, there will be no portfolio holders or chairs in place to consult with until new arrangements are made in the new term.

21. During this time, staff will need to continue to process routine business as usual matters, including routine requests from third parties for landowner approval such as commercial operator permits, temporary access requests and affected party approvals.

22. As a temporary measure, it is recommended that the local board allow staff to continue to process business as usual decisions that cannot wait until the local board’s first business meeting. This is irrespective of the requirements of the current delegation protocols to consult with the nominated portfolio holder on landowner consents. Staff will consult with the local board chair following the inaugural meeting until new arrangements are made at the first business meeting in the term.

Appointment to external bodies

23. Appointments made by the local board to external bodies will cease at the election, so local board members will not be able to attend meetings of their organisations as an Auckland Council representative from 22 October 2019, until new appointments are made in the new term. Staff will advise the affected external bodies accordingly.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The arrangements proposed in this report enable the council to process routine local matters during the election period. They apply only to local boards. The reduced political decision-making will be communicated to the wider council group.

25. The governing body has made its own arrangements to cover the election period, including delegating the power to make urgent decisions between the last governing body meeting of the term and the day the current term ends, to any two of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and a chairperson of a committee of the whole. From the commencement of the term of office of the new members until the governing body’s inaugural meeting, the Chief Executive will carry out decision-making under his current delegations.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

26. This is a report to all local boards that proposes arrangements to enable the council to process routine local matters during the election period. This will enable the council to meet timeframes and provide good customer service.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have specific implications for Māori, and the arrangements proposed in this report do not affect the Māori community differently to the rest of the community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The decisions sought in this report are procedural and there are no significant financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. There is a risk that unforeseen decisions will arise during this period, such as a decision that is politically significant or a decision that exceeds the Chief Executive’s financial delegations.

30. This risk has been mitigated by scheduling meetings as late possible in the current term, and communicating to reporting staff that significant decisions should not be made during October 2019.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. The decision of the local board will be communicated to senior staff so that they are aware of the arrangements for the month of October 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Chairperson	Peter Haynes
Deputy Chairperson	Glenda Fryer
Members	Lee Corrick
	Graeme Easte
	Rachel Langton
	Ben Lee
	Jessica Rose
	Margi Watson

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20190821 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	285
b ⇩	20190904 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	289
c ⇩	20190911 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	293
d ⇩	20190918 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	297

Author	Michael Mendoza - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards